I Thought We'd Get a Targeting Call; Apparently, No SEC Refs Were Calling Them

[Townhallsavoy]

Probably the most blatant targeting of the year on a player that couldn't be any more defenseless.

From what I understand about the rule - maybe I'm wrong - but even if the defender used his shoulder, he targeted the player's head while the player was in no position to defend himself. 

[Token]

Probably the most blatant targeting of the year on a player that couldn't be any more defenseless.

From what I understand about the rule - maybe I'm wrong - but even if the defender used his shoulder, he targeted the player's head while the player was in no position to defend himself.

I'm good with both no calls.  But I disagree with the top one being the most obvious. That was a kickoff and a live ball, both players could make play for ball.  Norwood already had the ball, and had already been tackled when Lotson came flying into the play helmet first.

[DnATL]

I'm good with both no calls.  But I disagree with the top one being the most obvious. That was a kickoff and a live ball, both players could make play for ball.  Norwood already had the ball, and had already been tackled when Lotson came flying into the play helmet first.

Obviously the bammer was not defenseless - he was sitting on the corndog, in a threatening position

[Token]

Obviously the bammer was not defenseless - he was sitting on the corndog, in a threatening position

Wouldn't be the first tea bag.

[DnATL]

Wouldn't be the first tea bag.

that teabag was decafp

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm good with both no calls.  But I disagree with the top one being the most obvious. That was a kickoff and a live ball, both players could make play for ball.  Norwood already had the ball, and had already been tackled when Lotson came flying into the play helmet first.

I'm not good with either no calls because both plays violated the targeting rule.

The whole purpose of the targeting rule isn't to limit big hits.  It's to protect defenseless players and to forbid any player from using their body as a means of launching to deliver a big hit to above the head. 

If you think the Alabama player was just trying to get the ball himself, you're out of your mind.  He launched off his feet with the sole purpose of delivering a devastating blow to the Miss State player's upper body.  That's targeting. 

[RWS]

From what I understand about the rule - maybe I'm wrong - but even if the defender used his shoulder, he targeted the player's head while the player was in no position to defend himself.

It has to be a helmet-to-helmet hit for targeting.  If you're going to call targeting for people laying a shoulder across an offensive player's body, then a ton of guys are going to get called for targeting.   

[jmar]

It has to be a helmet-to-helmet hit for targeting.  If you're going to call targeting for people laying a shoulder across an offensive player's body, then a ton of guys are going to get called for targeting.

Not sure but I think it includes both shoulder and helmet as a weapon making contact above the shoulders of a defenseless player where one launches the body or leaves one's feet to do so.

[RWS]

Not sure but I think it includes both shoulder and helmet as a weapon making contact above the shoulders of a defenseless player where one launches the body or leaves one's feet to do so.

Yeah, I think you're right, but I'm not sure that he hit the guy in the head for that matter.  Seems pretty borderline, but the hit on the Alabama player from the LSU DB was pretty clear cut, and it didn't even get called for targeting. 

[Kaos]

Yeah, I think you're right, but I'm not sure that he hit the guy in the head for that matter.  Seems pretty borderline, but the hit on the Alabama player from the LSU DB was pretty clear cut, and it didn't even get called for targeting.

Back to diddling goats I see. 

Can't believe you'd defend that.  Borderline?  Don't be an assclown. 

[jmar]

Yeah, I think you're right, but I'm not sure that he hit the guy in the head for that matter.  Seems pretty borderline, but the hit on the Alabama player from the LSU DB was pretty clear cut, and it didn't even get called.

JMO but it seems the SEC has relaxed a little in the last several weeks in the enforcement of this call. The greatest concern at least heard by non-players was how it could very well affect the outcome of a  game. The fact that the offending team received automatic penalty was sufficient enough for me to dislike the rule regardless of the following determination including the removal of the aggressor and possibly a suspension. However,  I think the idea of automatically penalizing a team was an effort to CONDITION players to be conscious of the imminent flag, no matter what the reviewer decided. Recently it just appears the crews are sending mixed signals by ignoring some questionable hits.

[RWS]

Back to diddling goats I see. 

Can't believe you'd defend that.  Borderline?  Don't be an assclown.

Jones hit the MSU guy in the chest with his shoulder.  Didn't leave his feet to make the hit, didn't hit the guy in the head or neck.  If you're 5'11", and you drop your shoulder to hit a 6'1" guy that is standing, you're not going to hit him in the head.  I just don't see how that is the most obvious targeting foul EVAR.  I think that was about as good of a play as you can make on special teams.   

[CCTAU]

The first was NOT targeting, but should have been a personal foul hitting a defenseless player. The defender led with the shoulder and hit the body, moving up to the helmet. NOT targeting. for targeting to occur, it first has to be a personal foul, then it has to be determined that the defender targeted ABOVE the shoulders. If you hit lower and then happen to hit the head, not targeting. The first hit above should have been personal foul though.